RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal & ccTLDs

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Whether the facts are correct or not I'll leave to others to engage in the
longer debate; but which registrar will tell the WG that the list of harms
noted in the report do not exist?   

David Giza told the BC this afternoon that between the Nairobi and Brussels
meetings his office received several thousand complaints from Internet users
and sent out hundreds of notices of non-compliance...

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.



-----Original Message-----
From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 9:09 AM
To: Ron Andruff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal & ccTLDs

Well, the so-called study shows mainly one thing: The failure of the 
composer to conduct proper fact-finding. I am unsure about the authors 
intentions, but I will go on record saying that most of his findings are 
likely a result from poor research.

Furthermore, I  do not see much governmental control beyond the inital 
contract granting operation rights in most ccTLDs. And at that stage, 
how is a contract with ICANN different from a contract with the 
government authority? Why should ICANN be less successful than a 
government in drafting a contract, especially if all of us collaborate 
in the drafting of this agreement. In many cases, there is no 
governmental oversight at all, but the registry is naturally required to 
act within the constraints of the law. If we impose a structure of 
required behavior, we go beyond the amount of policy in place for many 
self-organized ccTLD registries, and make abuse even more unlikely. If 
it works in ccTLD-land and we impose even more security measures and 
restrictions, the  opportunity and incentive  for abuse will be  
greatly  diminished.

As was clarified regarding the board position just now, it is our job to 
define the structure to make this possible, not to rely on the board for 
decisionmaking.  Look at the available models and do not try to impose 
unreasonable and unnecessary restrictions on 95% to prevent the 5% from 
behavior we can prevent or control in other ways.

I know of many registrars not in this WG, as well as companies 
interested in their own TLDs, who are very concerned by the restrictions 
imposed upon them for reasons that do not apply to them.

Volker


> Resemblance is not the issue.  The issue is whether the bodies that manage
> the ccTLDs can be equated with registrars that wish to either operate or
> provide backend registry services.   Even if one highly discounts the
Knujon
> study, it is still difficult to see government-controlled entities
engaging
> in the types of nefarious activities the study quite clearly pointed out.
> That is the parallel I am drawing.
>
> Thank you,
>
> RA
>
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 7:32 AM
> To: Ron Andruff
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal & ccTLDs
>
>
> Ron,
>
> While you are correct in assuming there are government controlled ccTLD 
> registries out there, in many cases, there is no or next to no 
> governmental oversight over the ccTLDs after their setup. Even in cases 
> of abuse, the reaction of the government body would be similar to those 
> sanctions proposed for registy abuse in previous proposals, .e. fiscal 
> penalties or assignment of a different provider.
>
> Considering many new gTLDs will resemble ccTLDs in many ways, especially 
> cultural TLDs and regional TLDs, would it not make sense to rmove the 
> restrictions of the RRA and instead requiring there be a statement of 
> non-objection of the governmental body not only to the existence of a 
> certain TLD (in place now) but also to the proposed model of ownership?
>
> I do believe the ccTLD argument is supporting VI as it can be seen as 
> completely analogous to many o the proposed new gTLDs. Implemention 
> ccTLD-like models with further controls and penalties imposed 
> contractually will allow new forms of TLDs without restricting
competition.
>
> Volker
>
>
>   
>> Often is has been noted that ccTLDs operate without consumer harm, but
>> (while I don't know this as fact and welcome others to confirm or
clarify)
>> it appears to me that most ccTLDs have significant government oversight
or
>> are run by governments, academic institutions or not-for-profits.  I am
>> aware that some smaller nations have outsourced and contracted operations
>>     
> to
>   
>> commercial entities, but the larger measure is as noted above.  If I am
>> correct in my understanding, it is understandable that there has been
less
>> harm in that group of TLD operators and thus the argument about ccTLDs
is,
>> in fact, not a supporting one for VI.
>>
>> If I am incorrect, I welcome corrections to my understanding.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> RA
>>
>> Ronald N. Andruff
>> RNA Partners, Inc.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:27 AM
>> To: Jeff Eckhaus
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal
>>
>>
>> While this proposal may be a step in the right direction, especially 
>> when considering the new additions for RSPs, I see it lacking in many 
>> respects. The blind focus of the 15% limit as a fix-all without 
>> addressing any of the perceived harms should be seen as what it is: 
>> simple protectionism of the interests of current providers by keeping 
>> registrars from the registry market. 
>>
>> I therefore propose to reintroduce the most crucial exception of the JN2 
>> proposal: allowing Registrars to act as Registries provided they agree 
>> not to sell or resell their own TLD, especially in the case of community 
>> TDs. Please bear in mind that many ccTLDs operate successfully and 
>> without consumer harm selling their own TLDs, so we registrars are 
>> already making a huge concession here, in fact this is the line I will 
>> not be able go beyond.
>>
>> Please also define the term structural seperation. Will it require 
>> seperate executive staff, support staff, or seperation of system? Any 
>> such seperation will drive up the price of operations. While I agree 
>> that financial seperation makes absolute sense, I do not see this for 
>> structural seperation of it means what I think it does.
>>
>> It is lacking a policy review procedure, which is needed to ease up the 
>> requirements in the light of experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> Volker
>>   
>>     
>>> One question -  does this proposal restrict a Registrar  from
>>>     
>>>       
>> participating in the gTLD round as an applicant? 
>>   
>>     
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>>       
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> On Behalf Of Jon Nevett
>>   
>>     
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:57 AM
>>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal 
>>>
>>>
>>> VI WG Colleagues:
>>>
>>> Here is a very high level proposal that is coming out of our subgroup
>>>     
>>>       
>> conversations (not every member of the subgroup supports)
>>   
>>     
>>> We are looking for a catchy name -- any ideas?  (nothing offensive
>>>       
> Milton)
>   
>>> New Proposal
>>>
>>> **15% restriction going both ways, including resellers and Registry
>>>     
>>>       
>> Service Providers (Back-end technical service providers) regardless of
TLD
>> -- taken from RACK
>>   
>>     
>>> **Exception for Single Registrant Single User for corporate use only --
>>>     
>>>       
>> (sub group believed that exception was not necessary as registry schedule
>>     
> of
>   
>> reserved names already provides for this, but good to have in contract
for
>> clarity) -- mostly taken from JN2
>>   
>>     
>>> **Exception for back-end (RSP) IF a) RSP doesn't control registry or its
>>>     
>>>       
>> policy, pricing and registrar selection; b) there is structural
separation
>> between RSP function and affiliated registrar function; AND c) RSP has
>> direct contract with ICANN requiring data
>> security/confidentiality/structural separation with graduated sanctions
>> including de-accreditation for any violations -- new idea
>>   
>>     
>>> **Use of registrars required; registry may select based on objective
>>>     
>>>       
>> criteria; Non Discrimination & Equal Access for registrars selected --
>>     
> taken
>   
>> from JN2
>>   
>>     
>>> **Group continues work on Single Registrant Multiple User and
>>>     
>>>       
>> Community/Orphan exceptions -- not necessary to be in place at time of
>>     
> final
>   
>> AG
>>   
>>     
>>> Looking forward to discussing on Thursday.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>       
>> --
>>
>> Fur Ruckfragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfugung.
>>
>> Mit freundlichen Grusen,
>>
>> Volker A. Greimann
>> - Rechtsabteilung -
>>
>> Key-Systems GmbH        Prager Ring 4-12                            Web:
>> 66482 Zweibrucken                           www.key-systems.net
>> <http://www.key-systems.net/>
>> Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50               www.domaindiscount24.com
>> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>
>> Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51               www.ISPproxy.net
>> <http://www.ispproxy.net/>
>> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>>
>> Geschaftsfuhrer: Alexander Siffrin
>> Handelsregister Nr..: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
>> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>>
>> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur fur den angegebenen
>> Empfanger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisnahme, Veroffentlichung oder
>> Weitergabe durch Dritte ist unzulassig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht fur
>> Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder
>> telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
> --
>
> Fur Ruckfragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfugung.
>
> Mit freundlichen Grusen,
>
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>
> Key-Systems GmbH        Prager Ring 4-12                            Web:
> 66482 Zweibrucken                           www.key-systems.net
> <http://www.key-systems.net/>
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50               www.domaindiscount24.com
> <http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51               www.ISPproxy.net
> <http://www.ispproxy.net/>
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>
>
> Geschaftsfuhrer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr..: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur fur den angegebenen
> Empfanger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisnahme, Veroffentlichung oder
> Weitergabe durch Dritte ist unzulassig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht fur
> Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder
> telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>
>   


--

Fur Ruckfragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfugung.

Mit freundlichen Grusen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH        Prager Ring 4-12                            Web:
66482 Zweibrucken                           www.key-systems.net
<http://www.key-systems.net/>
Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 50               www.domaindiscount24.com
<http://www.domaindiscount24.com/>
Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 51               www.ISPproxy.net
<http://www.ispproxy.net/>
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/>

Geschaftsfuhrer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr..: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur fur den angegebenen
Empfanger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisnahme, Veroffentlichung oder
Weitergabe durch Dritte ist unzulassig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht fur
Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder
telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

-- 

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Prager Ring 4-12
DE-66482 Zweibruecken
Tel.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 85
Fax.: +49 (0) 6332 - 79 18 61
Email: jpfeiffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it
is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify
the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.